November 25, 2011

That's the description coming from one of the sprayed protesters. According to Elli Pearson, the protesters had linked arms in a way that sounds as though the police were stuck in the center and the protesters refused to allow them out of the encirclement.

*shrug* this was the report on FoxNews. Bill O'Reilly's show I think. Even in the videos you can see the cops aren't on one side and the protesters on the other. You've got a pretty big crowd encircling the cops. Those were protesters too.

I'm not a cop but if I got encircled and these people wouldn't let me leave then pepper-spray would be the least of their worries.

This has been the report all along. The cops asked them to be let through and the Occupiers wouldn't.

The little creeps wanted a confrontation (apparently, they were getting orders from an "organizer" making the real decisions) and they got it.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

And the point made on O'Really still stands, it would seem. Considering the little darlings were thoroughly soused with pepper spray and didn't flinch, it must have been awfully weak. Not exactly the "Kent State moment" they wanted.

We actually got an email from the UC President about this incident. First time I recall getting an email from his office. He said the UCs realize they must provide an environment where students can exercise their first amendment right to protest.

I wrote back and said I prefer UC concentrate on providing an excellent education.

"This has been the report all along. The cops asked them to be let through and the Occupiers wouldn't."

I had the impression that the seated protesters with the linked arms were just blocking the sidewalk, on campus, and the cops could walk around them but were objecting to the disorder of a blocked sidewalk. I thought the rest of the crowd was just lined up on the 2 sides. I didn't know there were protesters all around, perhaps in a closed circle of people with linked arms, and it wasn't possible for them to walk away. I'd like to see the video -- which must exist -- of the crowd talking to the police. Was it taunting? Were they chanting about trapping the police? We're they trying to produce video of police brutality? I'd like the full context.

If this is true, I don't see how you can call the protestors peaceful. Blocking off all the exits and making a direct challenge ("they would have to go through us") is extremely provocative. It's manouvering to set up a fight.

In a lot of situations, you could argue that the fight has already started at that point -- that it's a straightforward clash of wills to decide whether the police will be allowed to leave. It's not inevitable that the confrontation will result in violence, but it's certainly on the table at that point.

"Kent State" has been mentioned quite often in conjunction with both the OWS movement in general and this incident. It should not be forgotten that that famous Kent State "shooting" picture on the cover of Newsweek of the sobbing girl bending over the body of the slain student and calling for help was of a non-student "outside agitator" (to borrow a phrase) from, iirc, Florida who was later arrested for prostitution. (Or maybe she was from Maryland(?) and subsequently arrested in Fla) Movements like the OWS are historically full of "disaffected youth" and/or rootless street-people of various stripes with waaayy too much time on their hands..

"And the point made on O'Really still stands, it would seem. Considering the little darlings were thoroughly soused with pepper spray and didn't flinch, it must have been awfully weak. Not exactly the "Kent State moment" they wanted."

They had plenty of warning. So they had their eyes closed. I would think that the key is not getting the stuff in your eyes. They also had the opportunity to hold their breath at the worst point.

I'm not supporting the use of the pepper spray, but I think it's important to know the whole context. If the police couldn't walk way, then they had to do something, and the issue is what should they have done instead.

I'm not an expert on police techniques, and I don't know what they should have done, but I assume they could have handled the situation a lot better. A key question is: What exactly was the situation?

It seems to me that we (society in general) have lost sight of the idea that the purpose of "protesting" is to provoke violent confrontation with "the authorities." If "the authorities" just ignore the protesters, or even accommodate them with places and facilities to "peacefully protest," there really is no "protest" - at least not one that means anything.

"This has been the report all along. The cops asked them to be let through and the Occupiers wouldn't."

I had the impression that the seated protesters with the linked arms were just blocking the sidewalk, on campus, and the cops could walk around them but were objecting to the disorder of a blocked sidewalk. I thought the rest of the crowd was just lined up on the 2 sides. I didn't know there were protesters all around, perhaps in a closed circle of people with linked arms, and it wasn't possible for them to walk away. I'd like to see the video -- which must exist -- of the crowd talking to the police. Was it taunting? Were they chanting about trapping the police? We're they trying to produce video of police brutality? I'd like the full context.

The scenario of not letting the cops get past emerged fairly quickly, IIRC; possibly in the early reports. I seem to recall rebutting Alpha with that bit of news. And, yes, it does seem to have been intended to provoke an altercation to make the Occupiers look sympathetic.

There was a post on PJMedia either the same day this came out or the day before about the Occupiers wanting a "Kent State moment".

"And the point made on O'Really still stands, it would seem. Considering the little darlings were thoroughly soused with pepper spray and didn't flinch, it must have been awfully weak. Not exactly the "Kent State moment" they wanted."

They had plenty of warning. So they had their eyes closed. I would think that the key is not getting the stuff in your eyes. They also had the opportunity to hold their breath at the worst point.

Not sure, but I think that stuff, if it didn't hang in the air, would still be on the clothes, skin, etc., and have an effect. I'll defer to someone with actual experience on the sending or receiving end.

"The scenario of not letting the cops get past emerged fairly quickly, IIRC; possibly in the early reports. I seem to recall rebutting Alpha with that bit of news. And, yes, it does seem to have been intended to provoke an altercation to make the Occupiers look sympathetic."

You're not responding to my key point. I know they couldn't "get past" in the sense of moving forward on the sidewalk. The issue is whether the cops were encircled and couldn't go in any direction without going through the protesters and whether the protesters were locking arms and stating that they would prevent the police moving through the circle without forcible breaking of the link.

Perhaps blogger has changed its mind--Seems to professor that you are asking for a level of analysis that probably didnt exist on the ground--Time for cold rational analysis is usually in short supply in emergent fast moving situations--wish it were otherwise.

For some background on how low the bar has been set for this new generation of urban, media-backed protesters, compare how benign the use eye irritants was at UCD versus the logging protests of Humbolt county in the 1990s.

In the Humbolt cases, the irritant was applied directly to the eyes and the protesters.

San Francisco -- An eight-person federal jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Q-Tip Pepper Spray Eight activists/plaintiffs, finding the County of Humboldt and City of Eureka liable for excessive force in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies and Eureka Police Officers used unconstitutional excessive force when they applied pepper spray with Q-tips directly to the eyes of the eight nonviolent forest defense protesters in three incidents in 1997. Three of the activists were also sprayed directly in the eyes from inches away. Two of the young women were juveniles, aged 16 and 17.

Former Sheriff Dennis Lewis and current Sheriff Gary Philp also were found liable for causing the use of excessive force by setting policies allowing the unprecedented use of pepper spray on the passive demonstrators, who had locked their arms together inside metal pipes...

The jury awarded nominal damages of only $1 to each of the plaintiffs, who made it clear all along that they weren't suing for the money, but to bring about a change of policy, to prevent the future use of pepper spray in Humboldt in the way it was used on them. They hope and expect that the verdict will reverberate far beyond rural Humboldt County to make it clear that police can not use the extremely painful pepper spray on non-violent people to coerce them to follow orders.

Lawyer Tony Serra called the verdict a "mixed metaphor." He said, "The verdict establishes now and forever that pepper spray applied in this fashion in these circumstances is excessive force. That will deter law enforcement officials throughout the country in the use of pepper spay and that's very good." But Serra said, "These young people suffered grievous mental anguish and should have been given a substantial amount of money to recompense them."

This is what the police said happened but their side didn't get mentioned in as many news stories.

They were encircled, they asked the protesters to move and then they warned them that they would get sprayed if they didn't move. The crowd chanted, "Don't shoot your children*." The protesters didn't move, they got sprayed, and the crowd chanted, "Shame on you!"

Cutting one group of police off from the other police may not be "violent" but it is threatening.

*Children! They want their opinions to be treated as if they were from adults but want to be given allowances for their behavior as if they were children.

Hagar said... It seems to me that we (society in general) have lost sight of the idea that the purpose of "protesting" is to provoke violent confrontation with "the authorities." If "the authorities" just ignore the protesters, or even accommodate them with places and facilities to "peacefully protest," there really is no "protest" - at least not one that means anything.

What are you talking about? The Tea Party had totally peaceful protests that resulted in a change in the Congress. They organized, they gathered, they spread their message (which was more focused), and they peaceably went home. A very successful peaceful protest.

On the very day of the incident, James Fallows wrote the following:Update 6: Again courtesy of Iris Xie, here is the [preposterous] statement of the UC Davis police chief, Annette Spicuzza, on why the officer "had" to use pepper spray:

The students were informed repeatedly ahead of time that if they didn't move, force would be used, she said. [Believable.]

"There was no way out of that circle," Spicuzza said. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation." [Volatile, maybe. "No way out?" Donnez moi un break.]

In the aftermath, people weren't really so interested in finding out what happened as they were in feeling outrage.

Much has been written about delayed adolescence resulting from keeping the kids in school into their mid-twenties, and I would say the OWS "movement" is an example of that. It is not a movement; just a bunch of delayed adolescents double-daring the grown-ups to show some spine.

Thus this incident at UC-Davis was more about the students "right" to sit down in the street and block traffic, than anything else.

The "Tea Party" (quotes, since there is no such party) was or is - we will see - a curious example of the citizens exercising their right to "peaceably assemble and present their petitions;" but they did not "protest" anybody or anything.

"I'm not an expert on police techniques, and I don't know what they should have done, but I assume they could have handled the situation a lot better. A key question is: What exactly was the situation?"

I am somewhat an expert on police techniques - well, if not an expert, certainly experienced - and I am at a loss as to how they could have handled the situation better save not pepper-spraying them at all. And the only reason not to use pepper-spray in this case is public relations as it is a legitimate and approved crowd-control method (in this case trying to make the the protestors break-up and scatter).

The protestors suffered no permanent damage, and from the looks of it, very little temporary discomfort, as they were warned by the officer well ahead of time giving them time to close their eyes and in most cases totally cover their faces.

Encircled or not, it appears to me that the police used the pepper-spray properly.

Come on, I've seen the videos. The cops could have stepped over the protesters if that is the case.

And---in fact---the first cop DOES step over them to shoot pepper spray in their eyes!

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

Then, once there is an available exit path, Cop #2 comes over to spray some more kids for basically no reason if we accept the "no exit" excuse.

I hate the politics of the kids. And I would like to sit each one of them down and explain to them that the thugs with the pepper spray---those guys represent GOVERNMENT that they think needs more power. How delusional do you have to be to believe that the government wields power to regulate capital markets in a more rational, measured fashion than it wields cans of pepper spray? How much empirical evidence do you have to ignore to arrive at that conclusion?

All that said, these protesters are kids. Stupid, deluded, over-privileged kids. But they are kids. I did plenty of stupid shit when I was 19. That is what 19 year olds do. I see nothing in that video that justifies the cops conduct.

As a final aside, why is it that when cops beat the crap out of a motorist, or a swat team shoots an innocent bystander, or the DEA rolls over a residence with a tank, or cops pepper spray kids sitting on a college campus, there is always some element of the supposed anti-government right that rushes to apologize for "law enforcement"?

I'm not supporting the use of the pepper spray, but I think it's important to know the whole context. If the police couldn't walk way, then they had to do something, and the issue is what should they have done instead.

I think it is important for the police to NOT seem helpless when the crowd goes out of control. To show that they are in control, in control to help those who need help. Could they have jumped over these people sitting on the sidewalk? That might seem like running away from the situation instead of addressing it.

Like Kristallnacht, a false flag operation meant to defame the other side.

I've never heard that Kristallnacht was a false-flag operation.

Some have claimed that setting fire to the Reichstag was a false-flag operation...

As to the Reichstag fire, look up Walter Schellenberg, Himmler's spec ops guy. A half-witted Communist confessed to it, but a lot of historians have thought he didn't have the mental capacity to pull it off. Some of the things Schellenberg has said indicate he might have been involved.

Kristallnacht was "revenge" for the assassination of a Nazi official in Paris by a young Jew.

I do think the students have a legitimate grievance. And that campus cop is paid 100K a year, while the students will enter a bad job market when they graduate with student loans at an average of 25K per student.

Tuition at Davis is now something like 12K a year. The state contributes less then 20% of the overall budget, and California used to have free tuition.

Older generations should be thankful that they went to school at a better time in history.

Hagar said... The "Tea Party" (quotes, since there is no such party) was or is - we will see - a curious example of the citizens exercising their right to "peaceably assemble and present their petitions;" but they did not "protest" anybody or anything.

Of course they were protesting. They were specifically protesting Obamacare and cuts in Medicare, and in favor of smaller gov't and lower taxes. They were protesting the direction Zero - Pelosi - Reid were taking the country.

Tuition at Davis is now something like 12K a year. The state contributes less then 20% of the overall budget, and California used to have free tuition.

Tuition is indeed going up rapidly.Yet I'll make the guess that most of these students also applied to out of state schools and USC (and possibly Stanford), all of which would have cost them substantially more.

As a California taxpayer and a payer of UC tuition, I believe these perennial student protests are wasting my good money.

I do think the students have a legitimate grievance. And that campus cop is paid 100K a year, while the students will enter a bad job market when they graduate with student loans at an average of 25K per student.

Perhaps the "students" should have considered other career paths then. Hmmmm? If the job market for their unwanted skills and useless degrees is not there.....then look for other jobs.

Sounds like Billy Joe Bob the campus cop with a high school education has better reasoning skills than the pampered baby adults at the university.

Older generations should be thankful that they went to school at a better time in history.

I am. I went to school when they actually taught you things. We graduated from high school able to read, write, do simple math and with a knowledge of history and geography. You cannot say the same for these students who have been abused by the public school education system. Most of them have to take remedial classes before they are even able to take the dumbed down college courses that they are offering today.

If the cops were blocked by the protestors around them, they certainly weren't blocked by the protestors sitting on the sidewalk. They could have walked around them.

Spraying the sidewalk protestors may have been warranted because they were blocking the sidewalk but if the cops were just trying to get through the protestors then they should have been spraying the ones standing around them.

I'm inclined to think that the pepper spray was the wrong call just from a PR standpoint. And if it was the right call, I agree that it seems weak enough that it didn't really serve its intended purpose.

The tents were cleared out (I'm not sure whether by the students or by the campus police.)

The area the students were sitting in was not a street; it was a sidewalk in the middle of a large lawn.

The campus police had done their duty (seen to it that the tents were gone). They could have simply walked away from the situation which was harming no one, but instead they escalated the situation.

You can now presume motivation on both sides for this, but perhaps the police were too hepped up on their own sense of Being In Charge to realize that they had completed their mission and it was time to go home.

They could have just let the kids alone.

Instead, they (the police) escalated the situation.

I'm glad the chief and two officers are on suspension, and I hope they and others who think this kind of behavior is acceptable will be fired. Police officers are not superior beings who magically transcend the bounds of decent behavior because they have a badge and a gun. Just because a police officer does something doesn't make it right.

I remember some dude saying something along the lines of "I disagree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to do so." Maybe it's time to pepper-spray that remark as well, and tell those undeserving students they should just shut up and let their betters do the speaking and deciding for them.

"You cannot say the same for these students who have been abused by the public school education system. Most of them have to take remedial classes before they are even able to take the dumbed down college courses that they are offering today."

UC Davis had a good reputation. It used to be one of the top in food chemistry.

The UC system used to be the envy of the academic world. But 30% annual cuts to the UC system are going to hurt.

In terms of the students, I can't speak for Californians as I'm in Canada. I don't know the level of education that Californians are providing for your kids, but in Canada we hear very bad things about the California school system.

In fact, we are told that if we decide to take a job in California we must send our children to private schools because you don't adequately fund your public schools.

I can speak for Canadian students. They are qualified for University work. But the school systems here are well funded.

It sounds like Californian children who do not have affluent parents have issues accessing a decent education in K-12. Once in University those students will graduate with thousands of dollars in debt.

There are natural economic consequences to these decisions. The rumors are that cuts will continue in California. The younger generation will have less money to buy the houses of retiring boomers.

There are 19 year olds leading fire teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they aren't children, then neither are the dumbshits who goaded the police into pepper spraying them for a propaganda video. Please spare me the "Oh, the poor children!" pearl clutching vapors dreck.

These are grown adults defying the cops and if the police tell you to move the fuck out and break it up, you move the fuck out and break it up. If you have a problem with it, you are free to sue them in court. Or complain to their supervisors.

You do NOT have any right to become a law breaking mob, defying police authority. The OWS clowns were deliverately picking a fight with the police. Pepper spray was designed so that police wouldn't have to bust heads to enforce the law on stubborn idiots. They got what they deserved. All the crying doesn't change that.

"As a California taxpayer and a payer of UC tuition, I believe these perennial student protests are wasting my good money."

These students are your children and your business. If you don't want to subsidize public education that's your choice as a California citizen.

Perhaps be realistic that you are moving to a privatized system that burdens students with large loans. This has consequences for the wider economy, as those students will not engage in family and household formation until later in life.

A little history on the Humboldt Pepper Spray 8 - the "organizers" of that day sent those kids in, knowing they would get pepper-sprayed, and knowing they could use it to their advantage, which they did.

Whether the cops should have applied the pepper=spray or not is still a topic of discussion, as in THAT case, they could have waited the protestors out. Unless they were willing to sit in their own excrement, sooner or later they were going to have to unlock and get up.

But in both that case and this one - the real ARCHITECTS of this thing are using those willing dupes to accomplish their own ends. They don't care who gets hurt in the process, and are in fact pushing for their Kent State moment. they would like nothing more than a death to send viral, and cry, and wail and rend their hair shirts. The better to make you bend to their will.

EITHER WAY - if you 'believe' strongly in a thing, and go to a protest, knowing, maybe hoping, that you are going to get arrested, or tear-gassed, or pepper-sprayed, (and if you were in any other country, killed) - when the time comes that you are arrested, take it like a man. No whining. No pleading. Show some pride man - same with this pepper=spray. You got what you asked for. Bully for you.

(Also - NO DISCUSSION of #Occupy is complete without mentioning Stephen Lerner's outline of the entire plan - The Unions could not launch it, they needed others to do that, then they could come out in "solidarity" - take down the banks, renege on your student loans, it's all there, and it needs to be remembered where this is really coming from.)

Captcha: ringl (as in the ringleaders who gloat over the pathetic pawns who act in their stead)

These students are your children and your business. If you don't want to subsidize public education that's your choice as a California citizen.

I have no idea what you are talking about. As I very clearly said, I pay both taxes and tuition.

I am hoping California can find a way to use both my tax money and my tuition money to keep UCs excellent. These protesters add to the expense of the university without adding to the educational environment. They detract from it.

The protesting students are not *my* kids. My kids are attending class, striving to get their education, and planning how best to become productive adults.

And just so you know, there are less expensive options than the UC system. California also has the Cal State system and the community (city) college system.

You do NOT have any right to become a law breaking mob, defying police authority.

Being a former service member myself I can understand why you would never question any orders that are given to you, but Thomas Jefferson and Harriet Tubman would most likely disagree with the idea of blind obedience to authority.

I'm sure that there exists in God's mind some ideal response to OWS protesters that does not involve pepper spray. On the other hand, I'm also sure that in God's mind there exists some kind of ideal protest that does not leave the police feeling beset and beseiged.....The post mortems always disect the police reactions and never the stimuli that triggered those reactions. Well, the protestors can take pride that they suffered no lasting harm and that they were able to deprive some working men of their jobs. Small, incremental steps to a better America.

Tell me, other than that you know 4-students were shot to death at Kent State, back during the student riots of 1972 (if I had to think of a year) ... The bodies were lying face down. So nobody put a face on what those kids were doing to the National Guard, who were called in to "solve" the rioting problem.

Now these rotten kids have faces!

NO PITY!

I don't think people really ever mustered up pity.

What happened after the kids were shot, back then? The rioting dissolved.

Hollywood, on the other hand, made Animal House. Which was about Dartmouth. No dead bodies.

And, the John Belusi character ... when the credits roll, points out that he became a Senator. Well, John Kerry did, too.

The right to protest does equate with a right to disrupt. The cops were right in what they did. Too bad Old Man Daley and the '68 Chicago cops weren't there to beat some sense in to the worthless scum.

purplepenquin said...You do NOT have any right to become a law breaking mob, defying police authority.

Being a former service member myself I can understand why you would never question any orders that are given to you, but Thomas Jefferson and Harriet Tubman would most likely disagree with the idea of blind obedience to authority.

11/25/11 11:56 AM

You would of course have no problem with pro-life protestors blocking abortion providers.

These students are your children and your business. If you don't want to subsidize public education that's your choice as a California citizen

A)These are not my children. My child has a job and a good career with a beautiful family and isn't sitting around like a brainless idiot.

B)We don't have a choice on funding public education. By public education I mean K -12. We pay property taxes that go towards the schools and pay for those school bonds voted for by people who DO NOT OWN property. Only a select group of us actually PAY for the public school education.

C) Given a choice....I would NOT subsidize the substandard, useless, propagandistic education- K-12 system- that we have in California. We are NOT getting good value for our investment.

D) College is a privilege and should NOT be paid for by tax payers. Perhaps some subsidies. However, the flood of "free money" from unwilling taxpayers is exactly what has caused this expensive inflation in college tuition.

Not everyone needs to go to college. Especially these colleges that are turning out uneducated useless graduates with useless degrees.

E) If you don't want to get arrested, pepper sprayed etc. and still want to protest.....I suggest that the students take a page from the Tea Party. They got their message across and got some real changes happening.

"Being a former service member myself I can understand why you would never question any orders that are given to you, but Thomas Jefferson and Harriet Tubman would most likely disagree with the idea of blind obedience to authority."

One of the great benefits to America is that we don't have to defer to the police in their judgments. That's why we have Civilian Review Boards, and that's why police officers are brought to trial.

I don't understand the need of some to let a certain class of people be their arbiters in what is right. I certainly do not believe the police are right just because they are police. Police can and do lie under oath. They can and do use excessive and lethal force. They can and do make people submit to their own idiosyncratic views on liberty.

In this case the police escalated the situation. Had they simply walked away, there would be no pepper-spraying and no suspensions. They could have let the kids sit there on the cold pavement for a few more hours until the kids got bored. They could have walked around (which some did).

Something inside them seems to have guided them to go from clearing out the tent city (which may have already been cleared out) to demanding that kids sitting on a sidewalk clear out (again, there were perfectly acceptable pathways around not 5 feet away from the students) to using pepper spray.

In the case of the pro-life protestors - they were IIRC hauled away physically and in some cases injured by the police. And again, IIRC, some of those injured filed suit against the authorities - and some won.

Really, if you think it's so awful for kids to be sitting around in the cold protesting, then just walk around them or ignore them. Stop pouring gasoline on the fire by demanding they obey you. You might want to think about your need for people to do what you want, and just leave them the hell alone.

"Perhaps it will turn out well for Canada, however. All the students who are being so poorly served by the UC system could pour over the border and into Canadian universities."

Ah, but that's what borders are for! :)

I suppose when I say "your children" I mean that different nations have to decide how and what type of educational systems to create for their younger generation. The World War II generation created a specific system for the Boomers in North America. The US did a great job in that era. But what system did the Boomers and the next generation create for the millennials? In America? In Canada? In Australia? In New Zealand?

I didn't mean to give an individual judgement. I think individuals want to provide well for the next generation. I believe Californians want to build a good school system.

But there are different levels of success -- both in terms of generations and in terms of nations.

But the rest of the world is competitive. Both in terms of academic institutions and in terms of economies. China, for example, isn't going to wait for California to get its sh*t together.

"There are 19 year olds leading fire teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they aren't children, then neither are the dumbshits who goaded the police into pepper spraying them for a propaganda video."

Perhaps you don't read the news very frequently, but many of those 19 years olds in Iraq and Afghanistan do some pretty stupid shit, too.

That's not to say 19 year olds are not responsible for their own actions. Clearly, they are. It is to say that being stupid and immature is part of being 19.

Being stupid and immature---at 12, at 19, at 51---is not a crime that warrants physical violence from law enforcement.

And what of those poor, poor thugs that were "goaded" into lashing out violently against peaceful citizens. If they cannot handle peaceful resistance in a more measured manner they are unfit for their jobs and certainly unworthy of the ridiculous, lavish pensions that CA state employees are awarded.

As a California parent of an elementary-school child, let me advise you that we spend ENORMOUS sums on education, per child. Unfortunately, we have no way of controlling how those funds are spent, the unionized teachers and especially administrators are collecting high salaries and rich benefits, the curriculum has been dumbed-down beyond belief, both to accommodate PC ideas and not to discomfit the huge numbers of non-English-speaking children (both legal and illegal) who are warehoused at our schools. On top of which, our legislature makes "bright" decisions re: what should be taught in school (e.g., the recent ruling that gays' achievements should be prominently featured in teaching "history" to CA students, necessitating costly changes in textbooks and even less attention paid to the actual HISTORY). As a cherry on this sundae, non-taxpayers keep approving new spending for the "childrun."

Now, please tell me what level of funding is appropriate when such idiocy is what's considered an education. As previously mentioned, most high-school graduates have to take remedial courses in college before they can even start on dumbed-down college classes.

Perhaps you should not believe everything you read in the press re: funding. There are no CUTS. Every teacher at my daughter's school that was threatened with a layoff (to gin up sympathy and allow teachers to take time away from teaching to go demonstrate downtown last May/June) is still there. They are getting rid of every enrichment-type teacher (art, music, etc.), but the ones in the classrooms are still doing a lousy job TEACHING. Individual teachers may be great, but the curriculum and the tools they are mandated to work with are worthless.

Both my husband and I were educated in the former Soviet Union. We had no computers, very primitive facilities, HUGE class sizes, and lots of propaganda. However, we also had teachers who maintained discipline, no PC crap, no babying of kids, and no "everybody must go to college" nonsense. We were given age-appropriate workloads, expected to work hard, and those who wanted to, could learn LOTS. Those who didn't want to, could leave school after 8th grade and go to trade school, or whatever.

The money is not always the key factor in the quality of education delivered. Just ask people who run Catholic schools.

Sorry about the rant, but this is a very sore spot, and it's aggravating to hear know-nothing lecture us on "our choices," which are, for the most part, not "our" and not "choices."

"A) Hardly matters. Even adults deserve respect---and if not respect---nonviolence from their government.

B) Most 19 year old have quite a bit of growing up to do. Maybe you didn't. Good for you. When I watch that video, I see a bunch of immature kids that aren't harming anyone."

Then why call the police in the first place? It doesn't matter if the police were encircled or completely safe - they were called in for a reason. Once the police are engaged, they are empowered, actually required, to make judgement calls about the situation and how to handle it.

Someone decided those protestors had to be moved. Pepper spray was almost certainly the safest way that objective could be achieved.

You people need some lessons in how civil disobedience works. If you choose to disobey, you also choose to accept the punishment for disobedience. Your subsequent sacrifice might turn the tide of public opinion. Or it might not. But insisting on facing even the mildest of consequences is just idiotic. It is to expect authorities to just say, "OK, let us know when you are willing to be law abiding, again." That's just silly.

"I'm not an expert on police techniques, and I don't know what they should have done, but I assume they could have handled the situation a lot better. A key question is: What exactly was the situation?"

An encirclement is the most dangerous situation in life, for any creature, with any kind of encirclement, and there are many kinds. An encirclement is an attack with a lethal purpose.

An encircled creature faces two possibilities: fold or break the circle. There are two ways to break a circle: first, cut one's way out of it, focusing attack on one section of the circle to break through it to open ground beyond the circle (then, ideally, encircling the circle), and second, attack the circle from its outside with a relieving force.

Custer was encircled at Little Big Horn with no relieving force knowingly in position to break the circle. He fought his men brilliantly and valiantly, preparing on every advantage the terrain offered, but his force was insufficient to break out of the circle and no one was in position to relieve him and know that they needed to.

If this at Davis was an encirclement, it appears the police inside the trap chose to cut their way out relying on their superior arms. If there was no possibility of a relieving force to break open the circle by taking it in rear, from outside it, the police used the only option they had other than folding.

I suspect it was an encirclement with no reinforcing police force in position to relieve the encircled force, but that is suspicion only. If that is the situation, leadership of the encircled force is owed a commendation for getting their force out without killing members of the encircling force. Reason they carry non-lethal weapons.

In any case, the encircling force was well-handled by its leadership, trained, deployed, ready for follow-up on-site and off. They have a degree of both strategic and tactical competence. If they weapon up and train above small unit tactics, they could be more formidable.

"You people need some lessons in how civil disobedience works. If you choose to disobey, you also choose to accept the punishment for disobedience."

With all due respect, I have seen this meme a couple of time and it is among the most fucking idiotic and infuriating ideas I heard in a while.

By this rationale, civil rights protesters that were attacked by dogs should have accepted the price of their civil disobedience.

(And can I cut off the inevitable strawman at the knees: I am not saying OWS and the civil rights movement are equivalent.)

Rather, can we bury the dumb argument that we need to "accept" violence from our government against peaceful citizens whenever it is foreseeable that our "public servants" will overreact like a bunch cruel, vindictive assholes?

Part of the reason I am a libertarian/small government conservative is that I *always* assume my government will behave badly. Don't go and tell me I have to accept it.

DD Driver: "...why is it that when cops beat the crap out of a motorist, or a swat team shoots an innocent bystander, or the DEA rolls over a residence with a tank, or cops pepper spray kids sitting on a college campus..."

One of these things is not like the others,One of these things just doesn't belong,Can you tell which thing is not like the othersBy the time I finish my song?

I reject that notion of people disobeying a lawful orer to move by a police officer as "peaceful".

These aren't Harriet Tubman or Ghandi or any other civil disobedience "hero" standing up to the man for their civil rights.

These are punks picking fights with the police while they are in violation of trespassing laws. The OWS protestors are the moral equivalent of a drunk in a bar sitting on the floor and refusing to leave after they have been 86ed. At least teh drunk has an excuse for his faulty reasoning.

Their desire for totalitarian solutions to what they are protesting removes every last shred of moral authority they try to claim for themselves.

Quit feeling sorry for them or trying to make hero's out of them, because they are not.

"With all due respect, I have seen this meme a couple of time and it is among the most fucking idiotic and infuriating ideas I heard in a while.

By this rationale, civil rights protesters that were attacked by dogs should have accepted the price of their civil disobedience."

That is exactly what they did and it is why their movements were successful. Oh, sure, they tried to protect themselves, but they clearly understood the consequences they were facing and they did so willingly.

"Perhaps you should not believe everything you read in the press re: funding. There are no CUTS."

I apologize if I misunderstood and California is not cutting public education. That's not what I've been told. I've heard California is slashing budgets for education K-12 and at the University level because the state is broke.

This summer a visiting UC faculty told me that the UC system took a 20% in a single academic year.

"By this rationale, civil rights protesters that were attacked by dogs should have accepted the price of their civil disobedience."

The point about civil disobedience is that you're still subject to the valid laws, and if you choose a protest that breaks those valid laws, you have to accept the same punishment that applies to everyone else. You don't get a special privilege to avoid arrest and prosecution just because you were engaging in expression at the same time or because your cause is good.

The question of police practices in dealing with the disorder is different from the issue of whether they are subject to arrest and should be arrested and prosecuted.

Anyway, the UC-Davis students should have been arrested for disorderly conduct. Were they told if they didn't stop, they'd be arrested? Were they arrested?

California probably still spends more per capita on public education than Canada, both in K-12 and the university system (I'm going by 2007 OECD figures). It does use its money much less efficiently. I doubt the Canadians have the absurd instructor/admin employee ratios we have. And even then educational inputs only weakly determine output. Other Californian stupidities put us behind Canada, finances aside.

The UC system (and the Cal State system, etc.) are more subsidized than almost any US public university system.

California also taxes and spends at a higher rate per capita and as a percentage of GDP (GSP?) than nearly all US states.

The real financial problem in California is that tax collections have collapsed, in large part because the state itself has sabotaged and suppressed its own tax base, and continues to tighten the screws. The high cost of living in California, in large part forced by the state, reduces what the state itself can buy with these reduced collections. The state is hobbling itself with its own contradictions.

Some years ago I calculated that the per capita purchasing power of the California tax base (calculating a state version of Purchasing Power Parity) was something like that of South Carolina - California is NOT the Golden State of the West Coast, we were then more akin, in reality, to the Deep South. Nowadays we are probably closer to Mississippi.

But unlike South Carolina or even Mississippi, things are getting worse by the day. South Carolina at least can look like an attractive place for a Boeing plant. Nobody in his right mind today would invest in California. There is no way out, we are doomed.

***DD Driver: "...why is it that when cops beat the crap out of a motorist, or a swat team shoots an innocent bystander, or the DEA rolls over a residence with a tank, or cops pepper spray kids sitting on a college campus..."

One of these things is not like the others,One of these things just doesn't belong,Can you tell which thing is not like the othersBy the time I finish my song?***

I assume you think being blinded by pepper spray is no big deal. I'd be happy to meet up and spray pepper spray in your eyes if you want to put your theory to the test!

My daughter is at Davis, getting her PhD. Thankfully, she is in the midst of a 6 month stint at a university in Dublin, Ireland at the moment. I hope this stuff is over ny the time she returns. She is not militant in any manner, although afte just under 8 years at two separate univerities I've lost her to the left.

A Fast Company survey last month found that African Americans, who are 12.6 percent of the U.S. population, make up only 1.6 percent of Occupy Wall Street. Hispanics, including the young people of very well-off hispanics, 2%.

"It seems to me that you - and others on this blog - conflate "protest" and "civil disobedience." They are not the same thing nor do they necessarily go together.

Protest falls under the First Amendment; civil disobedience does not."

True enough, but the OWS activities, as do most protests, is a mixture of free speech activity and civil disobedience. Occupation of a private park or a public park after curfew is an act of civil disobedience. Blocking a road is likewise. Presumably, the OWS people could have their say in any number of legal ways, just as the Tea Partiers have. But the OWS protestors decided from day one to also break the law, making their activities examples of civil disobedience, as well.

It is probably unfair to say they don't want to suffer any consequences. They surely want anything that advances their image as victims, so long as it doesn't hurt. It is because the official responses have been so mild that they react to the slightest official action as if they had been shot.

"I assume you think being blinded by pepper spray is no big deal. I'd be happy to meet up and spray pepper spray in your eyes if you want to put your theory to the test!"

Sure, D.D., as long as I can return the favor. Surely, you know that most people in the military have experienced an intentional exposure to the real stuff - CN or CS teargas. Not fun, but hardly the worst thing that can happen to you.

A billy club across the head would have been just as legal and perhaps more effective. They got off easy.

I still don't have a clear idea of what it was that the UC Davis kids were blocking, but it's pretty clear that they weren't blocking anyone's access to classrooms, offices, libraries, clinics, or any other places essential to the functioning of the university. Why was it so urgent to roust them? Hardly a day goes by at a UC campus when there's not some group denouncing capitalism and US imperialism.

And now that I've finally gotten around to watching the infamous video, one thing leaps out at me: full riot gear. Why did the cops need to go full-paramilitary to roust some doofuses from a quad? And before you all rush to tell me how endangered these cops were by "encirclement" (it was like Little Big Horn, I tell you!), watch about 35 seconds of this video. Amidst the helmeted SWAT-wannabes is one easy-going guy who doesn't seem to be smoldering with resentment at the privileged, dirty hippies fouling his lovely campus. When you're hiding behind a visor and waving an assault weapon at unarmed people, it's much too easy to start acting like a goon instead of a peace officer.

Campus cops have two jobs: protect the students (and faculty and admin staff) from harm, and maintain the orderly functioning of the university. If UC Davis really has a riot squad, then it's spending way too much on cops.

D.D. Driver said..."I assume you think being blinded by pepper spray is no big deal. I'd be happy to meet up and spray pepper spray in your eyes if you want to put your theory to the test!"

No need.

For we now know that if you would truly be happy, as you say, to pepper spray the eyes of Pastafarian (as kind and gentle a soul as one could ever meet), then either pepper spray really is no big deal or you, D.D. Driver, are an evil monster.

Encircling someone, not letting him leave - in other terms, false imprisonment. Which falls under the kidnapping statutes of all 50 states. In California, also classified as a violent felony, and a first-strike offense.

Little pricks got off easy.

BTW: I tried looking up "byro" in the urban dictionary. Got nothing.Kinda like J "himself".

For we now know that if you would truly be happy, as you say, to pepper spray the eyes of Pastafarian (as kind and gentle a soul as one could ever meet), then either pepper spray really is no big deal or you, D.D. Driver, are an evil monster."

You have smoked me out. I am truly an evil monster. I love nothing more than to sadistically torture dummies with reason and sarcasm.

"Watch the video. The cops had plenty of freedom of movement. A crowd gathered around the sitting protestors to watch what would happen. Never seen that before? You must not get out much.

Kidnapping! Custer's Last Stand!

Good lord."

I love it. For shit's the cop calmly steps (he doesn't have to jump or even high step) over the the supposedly impenetrable human barricade so that he could get a better angle at the protesters' faces while he sprayed them.

Althouse: "I had the impression that the seated protesters with the linked arms were just blocking the sidewalk, on campus, and the cops could walk around them but were objecting to the disorder of a blocked sidewalk. I thought the rest of the crowd was just lined up on the 2 sides. I didn't know there were protesters all around, perhaps in a closed circle of people with linked arms, and it wasn't possible for them to walk away."

You can see in this video (at the 2:20 point) that the cops could just walk away. That particular footage only has 230,000 views so far, so maybe Althouse hasn't gotten around to watching it yet.

Behind the cops at the 2:20 mark in that video there is nothing but a wide open and clear space where the police could just casually stroll away.

But, instead, the cops kept stepping back and forth over the students on the path as they prepared to brutalize them with pepper spray.

They were not trapped or "imprisoned". Which is why they were so relaxed as they committed their abuse. The cop who did the spraying could have just kept on walking after he stepped over the students, instead of turning around and blasting their faces at point blank range.

But Althouse can continue searching for her angle to blog in support of the police state tactics. The sane folks are asking themselves, "Is this America?"

"I think it is important for the police to NOT seem helpless when the crowd goes out of control. To show that they are in control, in control to help those who need help. Could they have jumped over these people sitting on the sidewalk? That might seem like running away from the situation instead of addressing it."

No. When the authorities resort to unwarranted physical tactics, it screams loud and clear that they have lost control. Moreover, force should be utilized only in self-defense or defense of others, not to assert or display "control."

Viewing the video again quickly gives the lie to the notion that these cops were "trapped" or in any way even concerned about their own safety or position.

This is the state demonstrating its own perceived position vis a vis the populace they (once) purport(ed) to serve: they hold the power to order us about as they please, and we--mere subjects of their power--must obey or be punished.

"Behind the cops at the 2:20 mark in that video there is nothing but a wide open and clear space where the police could just casually stroll away."

Whatever gave anyone the idea that the cops' most important consideration was to have a path to walk away? It looks to me as if their primary aim was to arrest that small group of protestors blocking the path. The video gives no clue of the backstory, but someone decided those people had to be arrested. So they did.

Aside from loud histrionics more suitable to witnessing indiscrimate machinegun fire into a crowd, the thing was done with dispatch and no injuries on either side. Naturally, the protestors might have preferred being wrestled one by one from the linked arms of their comrades, but why should the police have accomodated them?

"Viewing the video again quickly gives the lie to the notion that these cops were "trapped" or in any way even concerned about their own safety or position."

Why would anyone think the commenters here care abut the truth?

If it were up to some of the commenters here, the cops would've beaten those students over the heads with billy clubs. Upthread: "A billy club across the head would have been just as legal and perhaps more effective. They got off easy."

Althouse is in lawyer/liar mode, trying to help the right wing propaganda blogs spin things. Sorry, we've all seen the videos. The whole world has.....

Ann said: "I'd like to see the video -- which must exist -- of the crowd talking to the police. Was it taunting? Were they chanting about trapping the police? We're they trying to produce video of police brutality? I'd like the full context."

The incident can be seen here. There's about 45 minutes of video of the lead-up, the incident, and the aftermath. Plus a UC,Davis Aggie TV report on the initial incident two days before and a video exchange between one sit-downer and the spraying officer.

A confrontation with Campus Police was intentional and to some degree orchestrated. It's also important to know some of the Penal Code under which the police were operating, which is include in the post.

"The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response and we will continue to provoke until they respond or change the law. They are not in control; we are." - Gandhi, the movie, 1982.

"If it were up to some of the commenters here, the cops would've beaten those students over the heads with billy clubs. Upthread: 'A billy club across the head would have been just as legal and perhaps more effective. They got off easy.'"

My, Cardinal Richelieu was right and it only took you one line to do it.

I wrote that offending line and I don't personally care what happened to the protestors. I was merely making an observation of fact. The police could have legitimately used much more force. You haven't refuted it (indeed, you cannot because it is correct), you've merely chosen to dishonestly use it for your own purposes - to impute evil intent on people who disagree with you.

"Sorry, am I supposed to reply to you as if you're sane, after you already posted that you'd have approved of those cops beating those students on their heads with billy clubs?"

I've already disposed of that clumsy attempt at slander on your part, Loafing. Not knowing the backstory anymore than you do, I have no way of knowing what caused the police to act. But, so long as they had some presumptive reason to act, their choice of methods was largely up to them, within their ROE.

You know, it strikes me that perhaps you mistake my insouciance for animosity against the students. I have none, particularly. I just think they were lucky and you are using the incident for your own purposes.

The point about civil disobedience is that you're still subject to the valid laws, and if you choose a protest that breaks those valid laws, you have to accept the same punishment that applies to everyone else. You don't get a special privilege to avoid arrest and prosecution just because you were engaging in expression at the same time or because your cause is good.

That's how I always understood it. But I remember a Ronald Dworkin article in some collection (A Matter of Principle? Can't find it at the moment) arguing that conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War draft could be COs while fighting punishment for refusing the draft. The gist was that it's unjust to penalize someone for fighting what he sees as injustice.

Given that the "fight against injustice" was more than half a fight against harsh conditions, meager food, 24/7 orders, and likely maiming or death, I thought and still think the usual CO line was bollocks. (Though I had a middle school teacher who was a CO -- not the flee-to-Canada kind, the "just don't ask me to shoot anyone" kind. He was in Vietnam for the duration, as a photographer.)

Robert Cook: No. When the authorities resort to unwarranted physical tactics, it screams loud and clear that they have lost control. Moreover, force should be utilized only in self-defense or defense of others, not to assert or display "control."

Time Robert Cook has spent on a police line = 0

Hey Robert, maybe you can give Brett Favre some advice on throwing a football...

Moreover, force should be utilized only in self-defense or defense of others, not to assert or display "control."

Oh baloney.

From time immemorial, force has always been used to assert control and display dominance.

From Gorillas and Chimpanzees hooting, throwing tree limbs and slapping around the other members of the troop to authority figures and military rattling sabres to intimidate the rest of the modern "troop" into compliance.

Always has been and always will be. It is human nature.

Those who insist on denying human nature are doomed to be perpetually surprised.

Trashhouler: I was merely making an observation of fact. The police could have legitimately used much more force. You haven't refuted it (indeed, you cannot because it is correct)

Your "fact" was your claim that it would have been "just as legal" for the cop to have beaten the students over their heads with billy clubs.

Since the pepper-spraying officer is now placed on leave and under investigation, it's not a "fact" that the pepper spraying was legal or legitimate.

If you think it would have been "just as legal" had Officer Pike started cracking their skulls with a club, you must be pretty insane to believe you're just stating a "fact". And the burden's on you to make your case before you ask someone else to refute it.

So, why would it have been "legitimate" and "just as legal" for Officer Pike to have casually walked up to the students and started smashing their heads in with a billy club?

I think Officer Pike would be in jail and charged with felonies had he done that. I hope, anyway. And it would not have been "perhaps more effective" as you said -- it most likely would have sparked a violent riot.

Anyway, I see the news is finding some thing out about Officer Pike.Pepper spray cop was involved in anti-gay slur lawsuit which ended in $240,000 settlement:"Officer Calvin Chang's 2003 discrimination complaint against the university's police chief and the UC Board of Regents alleged he was systematically marginalized as the result of anti-gay and racist attitudes on the force, and he specifically claimed Pike described him using a profane anti-gay epithet."

And:"After recognizing Pike -- who is now on paid administrative leave -- spraying the 'Occupy Davis' protesters, Chang told a local ABC affiliate, 'When I saw that, I was as shocked as anybody else, but not surprised when I realized who it was.'"

[Quoting Robert Cook] "Moreover, force should be utilized only in self-defense or defense of others, not to assert or display 'control.'

Oh baloney."

Not quite, DBQ. In general, RC is correct, I think. Using force too freely is not only wrong, it can result in exactly the sort of behavior you are trying to prevent. It's a hard thing to balance, however, and folks like RC tend to underestimate how quickly a tendency to ignore bad behavior can lead to even worse things. Better to maintain some control lest things really go haywire.

In the early 80s the Baader-Meinhof gang blew up the building I worked in. (I was walking toward the aircraft I was to fly that day and felt the blast from a safe distance, else I would have been at my desk.) They also left a nice big bomb (subsequently defused) in the childcare center where my 3yr old daughter was playing. And we all got used to checking our cars for bombs each morning. Cute kids, that gang.

But they didn't start out as terrorists. They started as students radicalized by shitheads seeking to rid the world of controlling irritants like democratic governments. A lack of approriate control in the 70s led to bombs in the 80s. So, who's to say....

"Since the pepper-spraying officer is now placed on leave and under investigation, it's not a "fact" that the pepper spraying was legal or legitimate."

So, we'll find out, sooner or later, if his decision will be determined to be correct. You neatly neglected to include my double-barreled caveat: "so long as they had some presumptive reason to act, their choice of methods was largely up to them, within their ROE."

If he had to act (which I've already said neither you or I have any way of knowing), he chose the most harmless means available to him. In the absence of the spray, the bully clubs would have likely been used in the course of wrestling with unhindered protestors. Nothing casual about it.

But, I understand you want an issue to argue and your sense of self-worth is all wrapped up in this.

TRASHHAULER (appropriate name) said:But, I understand you want an issue to argue and your sense of self-worth is all wrapped up in this.

No, you said what you said, and I called you a fucking psycho for it. You said it would be JUST AS LEGAL and PERHAPS AS EFFECTIVE if the cops had bashed their skulls in with billy clubs. That's what you said. Yawn to the rest of your rubbish.

What I'm curious about is why Althouse was going on about "false imprisonment" and how it was "impossible" for the cops to leave when she's being linked to videos that show 100% that that was not the case. Is she a filthy liar?

I dunno. I haven't kept up on this blog much since last winter, when Althouse was making videos from her expensive car trying to get salt truck drivers fired for honking their horns in support of protesters Althouse opposed. What a bitch. And her husband is a right-wing jack ass who shoves cameras in peoples' faces.

Althouse is a tool for the right wing blogosphere, and she makes money off it. Let's see how long it takes her to update this post with a correction stating she was entirely wacko in suggesting the cops were reacting to being "imprisoned". It is false. Everyone can see it's false. Why is Althouse pushing LIES? LAWYER/LIAR. Links from InstaPundit, though!

" Well we were protesting together and the riot cops came at us and we linked arms and sat down peacefully to protest their presence on our campus. And then at one point they were – we had encircled them and they were trying to leave and they were trying to clear a path. And so we sat down, linked arms and said that if they wanted to clear the path they would have to go through us. But we were on the ground, you know, heads down and all I could see was people telling me to cover my head, protect myself and put my head down. And the next thing I know we were pepper-sprayed," the protester told Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now."

From this video, it's pretty clear the protesters did have the police surrounded, the officers did individually warn each protester sitting on the ground they were subject to the use of force and the protesters were clearly heard (using the human microphone) telling the police they (protesters) would allow the police to leave IF they complied with their demands:

Chip S: If you would look at the video linked in my post, you would see the police surrounded by a chanting mob. You'd see the police warning the sitting protesters, who are blocking the street, what will happen if they do not move and you would hear the protesters telling the police they would allow them to leave if the police comply with their demands.

"Just one: If the encircling mob was the threat, why was the pepper spray not directed at them?"

On the one hand this could be an honest question because you can't figure out that it's better to do a small demonstration rather than just simply attacking everyone in sight with pepper spray. In part because it wouldn't be effective. In part because the last thing the cops want is for things to get more out of control.

On the other hand it could be that you're just being an jackass.

next question from Chip S.; what are words and what is this thing called "English".

If in fact the poor cops were panicked by their encirclement and only wanted to get through, they'd have only had to spray a couple of people. People who'd have clearly been interdicting the cops' movement.

Office Pike did not behave like a cornered animal in fear of his life. That's plain to anyone who isn't wedded to a particular point of view.

Recently, ergo carriers QuirkyBaby transforms the particular highlight within the Boba Newborn Carrier, a new belt carrier that’s quite recent nonetheless has get very well liked. This wedding guest now is usually Elizabeth Antunovic, creator in the Boba and founding father of Quick sleep, Inc., that also is the Drowsy Wrap. Pleasurable point about the Boba : it requires it is identity by ergo baby carrier Boulder Toddler (service provider).